SHIVANSHU DHURIYAversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - A No. - 14881 of 2021

Shivanshu Dhuriya
                                                          .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

Union Of India And 4 Others
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Kaushal Kishor, Mohan Yadav, Shiv
                                 Badan
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : A.S.G.I., Siddharth Singhal

Court No. - 32
           HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Manish Goyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Divya Chauhan, learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. In the present case following facts are not under much dispute that
father of petitioner died in harness while working on the post of
Development Officer at the office of respondent no.4 on 13.11.2013.
3. Mother of petitioner submitted an application on 7.12.2013 before
Branch Manager, LIC of India, Banda that his son (petitioner) aged about
16 years be considered for compassionate appointment after granting
relaxation in age.
4. Admittedly, petitioner has two elder sisters and according to
subsequent letter dated 28.10.2016 mother of petitioner has declared that
her elder daughter got married on 1.7.2009, whereas her younger daughter
got married on 7.7.2016. Respondents have not much responded to the
letter dated 7.12.2013, where reference was made only in regard to
petitioner being minor.
5. Petitioner’s mother remained silent on claim for compassionate
appointment for her daughter and son, though for other claims she has
made further attempts so much as that she submitted an application for
family pension in prescribed format on 7.2.2014, wherein she has
declared that she has one daughter and one son. At this stage also, no
reference was made as to whether her daughter was married earlier or not
and accordingly family pension was fixed on a higher side.
6. Petitioner’s mother remained silent for about 3 years and vide a letter
                                                              WRIA No. 14881 of 2021
                                    2

dated 21.9.2016, she claimed that her son i.e. petitioner, who has become
major be granted compassionate appointment. In the said letter for the
first time it was disclosed that her second daughter was also got married.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, claim of the petitioner was considered
for compassionate appointment, however her claim was rejected vide an
order dated 4.11.2016 in terms of clause 21 of Instructions of 1993 and
relevant being Clause No. XXI (V) (a) (b) and (c) are reproduced
hereinafter:

     " (v) The relaxations shall be admissible only if a request is received from
     the relative who satisfies the conditions of minimum educational
     qualifications, age, etc., as prescribed, within a period of one year from
     the date of death of the employee or early retirement as specified.

     Provided that the time limit of one year may be extended in the cases
     specified below

     a) A widow may be allowed upto 5 years from the date of death of her
     husband to secure the prescribed qualification for appointment to Class
     III post in the Corporation,

     b) A major son or unmarried daughter who satisfies the qualification for
     appointment to Class IV post, may be allowed upto two years from the
     date of death to secure prescribed qualification for a Class III post if
     he/she so desires,

     c) Upto three years from the date of death where all the children are
     minor. "

8. The petitioner thereafter approached higher authorities, however, her
request was rejected firstly by Senior Divisional Manager vide an order
dated 4.11.2016 and subsequently vide an order dated 26.11.2019 that he
was not entitled for compassionate appointment.
9. The petitioner again approached Pradeshik Prabandhak for similar
relief however, claim was again rejected vide an order dated 22.12.2020
and 20.7.2021 by the said authority.
10. Now being aggrieved by aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed
present Writ Petition against orders dated 4.11.2016, 22.12.2020 and
20.7.2021.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that younger sister of the
                                                       WRIA No. 14881 of 2021
                               3

petitioner was married much earlier but ceremony of her Gauna took
place in the year 2016, however, Court finds that no such averment is
neither made in the writ petition nor in any document or application
submitted before the respondents. He further submits that as soon as
petitioner became major, he approached the concerned respondent
however, his claim was erroneously rejected.
12.Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a judgement
passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.Seshagiri Vs. Life
Insurance Company of India, 1991 LawSuit (AP) 3432 and he refers
Clause 21 (v) of Instructions that relaxation could be extended.
13. Per Contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondents refers counter affidavit that some crucial facts were not
mentioned in the writ petition such as petitioner’s mother has herself
informed respondents vide letter dated 28.10.2016 that her second
daughter was married on 7.7.2016, therefore, she was eligible for
compassionate appointment when her father died in harness, however, she
has neither approached concern respondent nor made any request that in
her place, her brother be appointed after he became major.
14. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
respondents has placed reliance on judgments passed by Supreme Court
in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar
(Mrs) and Anr. (1994) 2 SCC 718, Commissioner of Public Instructions
& Anr Vs. K.R.Vishwanath (2005) 7 SCC 206 and Sudhir Kumar Consul
Vs. Allahabad Bank (2011) 3 SCC 486.
15. In above factual circumstances, when the petitioner’s mother was not
bonafide, since she has not disclosed correct facts and at one hand she has
declared that her younger daughter was unmarried for the purpose of
determination of family pension and on other hand she has declared that
her younger daughter was married earlier and her Gauna took place in the
year 2016, so that present petitioner be appointed on compassionate basis
after more than 3 years, such contrary plea are not accepted.
16. Once unmarried daughter has not come forward at relevant time to
either appoint her or with a request to wait till her brother i.e. petitioner
became major, therefore, now he could be granted appointment on
compassionate ground only in terms of instructions and condition of
relaxation referred above that he can claim it even after 3 years only when
                                                                                          WRIA No. 14881 of 2021
                                                                   4

                                    all three child were minor at the time of death of employee whereas
                                    admittedly in present case, one unmarried daughter was major when her
                                    father died and she could have claimed compassionate appointment at
                                    relevant time.
                                    17. In the above background, an argument that if unmarried daughter got
                                    compassionate appointment and later on she got married and, therefore,
                                    will not support her family, cannot be accepted since at the time of
                                    compassionate appointment, beneficiary has to give an undertaking that
                                    he or she will look after his or her family, therefore, considering the
                                    judgement placed by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents no
                                    direction can be passed to consider the prayer for compassionate
                                    appointment contrary to prevailing instructions without taking note of
                                    limitation period as well as conditions for relaxation, therefore, Court is
                                    of the view that no case for interference is made out.
                                    18. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.


                                                                              (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    April 1, 2026
                                    SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad